Should steampunk look old?

[oldskoolpunk]

I was working on one of my projects at TechShop in Silicon Valley. It's shiny new brass and polished wood, and although a 19th century design of sorts, it looks brand new. I was talking to someone there who makes movie props, and he asked whether steampunk gear should look old. I didn't have a good answer to that.

What's the aesthetic here?  In its day, Victorian equipment was shiny and new; what we see from that era today has a century or more of wear on it. So when we build new equipment, should we age it? There are arguments on both sides.

I'm inclined to think that it should look a little used, indicating it's a functional object. But adding an "aged patina" (which is not hard) wouldn't help the aesthetic.  Comments?

[malgrimace]

I'd assume it's down to person taste.

My personal opinion is that I prefer slightly more tarnished looking pieces as they appear used, and I think some things that are too clean look more like toys.

[Dr cornelius quack]

You made it, so it's your choice.

A patina of age is like the badge of honour for truly old things.
So, letting your piece acquire it in the usual way is a perfectly good call.

Even some of the proper old stuff looks like new if it's been looked after.

It's for you to consider the 'backstory' of the item and the context in which it will sit and decide accordingly.

It's one of the joys of making things.

Dr. Q.

[lilibat]

I like my stuff to look newish but definitely well used & somewhat regularly cared for.

[J. Wilhelm]

I have struggled with this issue in making my "calculation engines," which by necessity require some elements which look new like a DVD burner drive, and some that look old, like the keys of an old typewriter (see www.victoriansteam.baroquestone.com)  My pieces seem to incorporate both aspects, "distressed," and "new."

But fixing such contradiction would set me back substantially in terms of effort and practical complications (such as building special size keys for a keyboard).  I finally reconciled the paradox by using color schemes which looked "pleasing" to the eye (for example choosing a flat black finish for plastic parts which needed to coexist with more "Victorian" materials.

 Or perhaps one can even explain the "history" of the piece as a series of modifications by a Victorian fabricator, like someone "fitting a complicated clock movement into an old wooden box from the orient.". Why not?  I'm sure it happened in real life,  Not everything in the Victorian world was new at the time!   

[J. Wilhelm]

That is an interesting question for Jeff VanderMeer, as he will publish his "Steampunk Bible," a "compilation of all-things steampunk" --I have submitted my "calculation engine" designs and website for the Steampunk Bible BTW!!

Ms. Lilibat, I like your devices!  I wonder if your Palantir could be set up to receive WiFi!

[zpyder]

I would have thought it depends entirely on what you want the history of the piece to be, as others have said.

If it's a role-play item, surely the character using it is likely set in the SP victorian era, and so it could look new, or used (not antique, just 'worn').

However if it's a relic or something retrieved from SP times of the past, or futuristic, it might look 100+ years old.

About the only weird thing IMHO would be for someone roleplaying as a victorian era steampunker with a 100+ year old piece of kit, unless said character uses salvaged equipment from the late 1700's/early 1800's.

[JingleJoe]

Well of course steampunk things should look like they are from an old time period (or a retro-future) but they don't have to look aged, however as was first said by Mr Malgrimace, it's all down to taste. I like things that look battered and bruised and worn with time and use, so I make all my old looking creations to have signs of age.

[WillRockwell]

One disappointment with the technology of the past is that we never get to see it shiny and new. That is my justification for attempting a "factory" look to my artifacts. Sometimes I'll have a part that is tarnished or has an age spot that won't come out. In that case I leave it for "authenticity". One of the hardest aspects of craftsmanship is to achieve the look of age and wear, I salute those who can do it.

[Bald Knobber Labs]

Items tend to last longer in the steampunk world, you can have them repaired or fix it yourself, instead of discarding it. So it comes down to the history of your piece. Did you acquire it today fresh off of the bench ,or did your excentric Uncle pass it on to you as well as the tales of how it became dented while exploring a previously undiscovered passageway in the great pyramid.  This is  just the greatest hobby ever!

[Skepsis Cog]

One thing to bear in mind is that some signs of age - tarnished brass, for example - aren't the sign of decades of neglect. Rather, tarnish can happen in weeks or even days. Should steampunk equipment look a hundred years old? In most cases, probably not. But neither would you generally want it to look new and out of the box.

This past summer I purchased a brass space pen. And because I despise lacquer coatings (I think the "false shine" they add robs brass of its richness) I removed that and allowed the pen to age on its own. Portions of it developed a patina within days, while other parts remained relatively clean. That said, even the clean portions do infact have a richness they lacked when lacquered.

In my opinion, the best option when available is to let things age on their own. And if you want to keep them shiny, polish them. Real maintenance (or painting to reflect such) will always have a more authentic feel than something treated to never age at all. Just look at a well cared-for pocketknife vs. a brand new one and you'll see the difference immediately.

[WillRockwell]

I am still torn over how brass should be allowed to age. Consider this USB drive, which I carry on my keychain. Here are photos of it new, and what it looks like today, despite frequent polishing. I suppose I should get used to the authentic weathered look, but I still like them shiny and new.

[Siliconous Skumins]

In my view it depends on what the item is or is for - if it's something like my desk light which is made from real Victorian gas lights, then I leave it looking 100+ years old (as is the case with the desk I'm working on at the moment). If it's *genuinely* OLD, then it should stay looking old - why ruin it's history to make it look new?

However, if the item is something of a role play / larp nature, or newly created item (eg computer / device) for your steampunk persona, then it should look fairly new, but probably used / worn. If the item is something such as clothing, then the worn out look should probably be avoided... Same with decorative items, these should also remain decorative rather than shabby.

If you have a fully steampunk style home, you would probably have things looking relatively new (just as the Victorians would have Had new items at the time), but if you have a modern style home with only a few steampunk objects or steampunk 'relics' / collection, then you would probably choose to have these looking aged as if they really had been around for over 100 years (and probably complete with a back story...).

So the question of 'what should look old', really depends on the intended use of the creation.

SS

[Burr]

It doesn't have to be rusty. The Victorians knew how to polish and dust things too.

If it is a genuine antique then you really should leave it be as much as you can though.

[Waterbug]

I make things shiny and new, but I do not aim for factory finish either. I do not lacquer and prefer a natural patina from the user's own use which makes it authentic. Although brass and copper age very fast the patina does change over years. Antique dealers can date a metal object by patina and those patinas are very hard to reproduce, some would say impossible.

Most all props I see are aged. When you start with foam and plastic aging is a big help at hiding what's underneath and moving the look forward quickly. I think it is impossible to get plastic to look like polished brass short of electrophoretic lacquer. Metallic paint on its own without any over finish is a sad affair. Of course the actual look of real aged brass is much different from what's become known as "brass antique finish". Same term for two entirely different finishes.

Most everyday use items I see are not aged. Most aging techniques do not hold up very well with use unless sealed in a finish which seems to defeat the aging. For example, adding a green patina to an everyday use item will wear fast and change into a natural patina over time any way. But again, we go back to the same term for two different finishes. The new "brass antique finish" is used on many manufactured products today but I that has nothing to do with making it look old and is just another finish that people like and is easy to do and can be used over cheaper materials.

Some objects I may not like the way they patina and then go back and polish and lacquer. Easy enough to do.

[Decker]

Both really.  Steampunk gear by default can be new or old looking.  What makes it "steampunk" is the overall choice of design elements and guidelines you choose.  A nicely detailed cane can look steampunk, whether it's flawless and polished or has aged patina and a few nicks/stains.  More than anything, A "new" or "used" look primarily gives hints about the object's use/history or gives clues to the owner's character.

[Vagabond GentleMan]

I agree with Decker.  Shiny vs. aged is a matter of personal preference.

I like stuff looking SteamPUNK, so I distress and age everything.
But I'm also more a fan of a 'working-class/underclass' Steampunk look, so the aged and distressed thing appeals to me.

Shiny and new is better for a more 'aristocratic/dapper upper-class gent' type of look, which is equally Steampunky.

[Mechanic]

Umpteenth both the "depends" and "personal preference" options. The look I wanted for the BFG was mass produced, issued to the field, bashed around a bit in Her Majesty's service, sold as surplus and bashed around a bit more. So not new, abused a bit but generally cared for.

[J. Wilhelm]

One disappointment with the technology of the past is that we never get to see it shiny and new. That is my justification for attempting a "factory" look to my artifacts. Sometimes I'll have a part that is tarnished or has an age spot that won't come out. In that case I leave it for "authenticity". One of the hardest aspects of craftsmanship is to achieve the look of age and wear, I salute those who can do it.

I couldn't agree more.  It is very difficult to achieve an acceptable "distressed" or "aged" look.  Often the piece will look just as bad ( or maybe worse ) than the "artificial" look of something new if you try too hard.

In my case I also had to consider the taste of "non-steampunk" clients who were attracted to the Neo-Victorian styling ( steampunk elements of style will eventually filter onto the mainstream you know?? I don't see this as necessarily bad- as Jake VonSlatt mentioned in his blog).

I pushed my paint schemes over plastic as much as I could on those parts of my machines that absolutely needed a finish, but then had to stop myself from trying to cover every detail when I imagined the piece becoming too "tacky." Those craftsmen/women who can pull an authentic look must be very good at what they do...

[Mr. Hatchett]

I like a level of distress that suggests regular and occasionally hard use, but careful maintenance for my own effects.  I can appreciate items on either end of the spectrum, but ultimately everything we make is a storytelling device.  If we're good at what we do, then the story the item tells is the one we set out to communicate.

Bearing that in mind, no answer is right for every prop and artefact in the genre.  They don't all come from the same period in history, and aren't assumed to currently be in the same period in history, and each piece has seen different levels of use in different environments, and by different people. 

[MWBailey]

I agree with M. Hatchett; a patina of use is more toward the aesthetic than a look of age; however, the "re-use of old junk" aspect would require, perhaps, that while of course a new use in a new contraption woukld probably mean shiming up an old part, a "worn," rather than a "neglected" patina would be best --keeping in mind how "old" within the context of the piece, the persona who uses /interacts with it, and the arena or scenario in which he/she does so dictate that the item be.

For example, a "new" Blunderbuss made from brass replacemnet parts or makeshift brass pieces would likely have been shined up before assembly in places where the polishing cloth couldn't reach, with an overall patina of newness, whereas the brass and other parts of an "old" blunderbuss from the "coach gun" period would be dark and/or corroded in those same places, and have an overall patina of age and chemical reaction to lack powder and cordite. but as always, YMMV.

[Gozdom]

I am still torn over how brass should be allowed to age. Consider this USB drive, which I carry on my keychain. Here are photos of it new, and what it looks like today, despite frequent polishing. I suppose I should get used to the authentic weathered look, but I still like them shiny and new.

OMG, the gear on the cap has grown teeth! It mutates!

[WillRockwell]

I am still torn over how brass should be allowed to age. Consider this USB drive, which I carry on my keychain. Here are photos of it new, and what it looks like today, despite frequent polishing. I suppose I should get used to the authentic weathered look, but I still like them shiny and new.

OMG, the gear on the cap has grown teeth! It mutates!

Haha....the gears on either side of the cap are different.

[Endeavour Cull]

It doesn't have to be rusty. The Victorians knew how to polish and dust things too.

If it is a genuine antique then you really should leave it be as much as you can though.

And they where thorough and tidy!

My opinion (if needed  ) :

If it's old, leave it old.
If it's new and shiny, age it a bit.
If it's made of mixed parts (old and new) then it's up to you too make it shine or dull it a bit. (My preference would be well tended but not shiny).

[The Inventor]

I think New would look simply smashing,
 It is entirely your choice you know.
But shinny is well Shinny!